corporate compliance attorney

Appellant beneficiaries sought review of a judgment from the Superior Court of El Dorado County (California), which declared respondent executor's account settled and found that respondent had exercised due care in retaining stock.

Appellant beneficiaries contested respondent executor's first account. The trial court found in favor of respondent. Appellants challenged judgment and contended that the incorrect standard of care was applied and that the finding of no negligence was unsupported. The court held that an executor was not negligent if it exercised ordinary care in applying the skills and knowledge ordinarily possessed by banks engaged in the trust business under similar circumstances to the administration of the estate, and that the evidence sufficiently showed that respondent met this standard. The court continued that respondent could not be called to account for performance of its duties as trustee in the proceeding for settlement of its account as executor even though it might have to give due consideration to the existence and terms of the trust and the circumstances of the beneficiaries of the trust in order to properly carry out its duties as executor. The court found that compensation of respondent and its attorney should not have come from the shares of the appellant's portion of the trust. The court corporate compliance attorney modified the judgment with regard to compensation and affirmed the judgment as modified.

The court modified the judgment with regard to compensation and affirmed the judgment as modified approving the account of respondent executor and finding that respondent exercised due care. The court held that respondent was not negligent because it met the standard of ordinary care in applying the skills and knowledge ordinarily possessed by banks engaged in the trust business under similar circumstances to the administration of the estate.

Petitioner applicant sought review of action of respondent, Committee of Bar Examiners of the State Bar, which denied him certification to the Supreme Court of California for admission to the bar because he lacked the good moral character required by Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §6060(c). Petitioner challenged that he did not accept the binding legal effect of prior findings of violations of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 9993(a), (c).

Before attending law school, petitioner applicant had operated an employment agency, and had been disciplined through a 20-day suspension of his license by the state Bureau of Employment Agencies (bureau). When petitioner sought certification to the Supreme Court of California for admission to the bar, respondent, Committee of Bar Examiners of the State Bar, investigated and determined that petitioner lacked the "good moral character" required under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6060(c). Petitioner appealed, claiming that the record belied respondent's conclusion. After review of the record, the court held that petitioner's contentions were well taken, and that the record did not support respondent's decision to deny petitioner the opportunity to practice law. Petitioner's uncontradicted evidence of good moral character established the requisite prima facie case, and respondent's findings of lack of good moral character were not supported by the bureau's findings of violations of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 9993(a), (c), and did not outweigh petitioner's evidence. The court ordered respondent to certify petitioner to the Supreme Court of California as qualified to practice law.

The court reversed the decision of respondent, Committee of Bar Examiners of the State Bar, and ordered respondent to certify petitioner applicant to the Supreme Court of California as qualified to practice law. Petitioner had established a prima facie case of good moral character that was not rebutted by findings of the state Bureau of Employment Agencies of previous employment agency licensing violations.